Paul Krugman completely fraudulent in this post

He uses this post to show Reagan engaged in government spending, blue line, to boost GDP after the 82 recession, provide better demand policies. He compares that with Obama, the red line. The idea is that when government spent more, real GDP grew. Is that true os is that more fraud for the Krugmanites?
Let's look, shall we?

I have both periods plotted, real GDP and federal spending, both YoY changes.  Blue is government spending, read real GDP. Let's see, Reagan started with real GDP growth at 4.38% and ended with 4.13%, peak to peak. Obama started with 3.1% and ended with 3.1%, peak to peak.  Or we can say Obama started with 2.5 and ended with 2.5.

Anybody think that government spending made a difference here? No, this is Krugman at his worst, very sloppy analysis, a very  fraudulent interpretation and simply garbage.  This economist should never be allowed in a classroom.

 Wait, you say.  Didn't Reagan have at least one peak period of growth in 1984?  Maybe, but look at his interest expenses, jumping up during that period.  Reagan was not yet dealing with an indebted government, was was starting the indebted government. Obama is still dealing with Reagan debt, and look what happens to his interest costs in this chart. Obama gets a full 10% jump in interest costs, and was reducing expenditures, he has to roll over the debt from the bonehead in 1983.